WORST UMPIRING. EVER!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

If he's tackled before the ball comes back to him, then it's a free kick for holding the ball.

I'll need to look at it again. I thought at the time he'd bounced the ball, it had come back to him and he'd disposed of it before he was tackled.

Edit: Just had a look at the replay (last free kick paid to Sydney if anyone else is interested. He was tackled after he bounced the ball but the ball came back to him and as soon as it came back to him he hand passed it).

Edited July 8, 2013 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[deanox 9,989]

If he's tackled before the ball comes back to him, then it's a free kick for holding the ball.

You know Webber, I can't find anything specific in the rules about this.

My take on it was that Watts had prior opportunity therefore when he is correctly tackled he needs to dispose of it immediately or it is holding the ball.

My recollection is that he did immediately dispose of it after regaining the ball from the bounce, so I can't see the problem.

Also of note is the distinction that a correct tackle needs to retard the player and I'm not sure it had sufficiently retarded watts to the point requiring an immediate holding the ball decision.

One thing that has bugged me this year is watching played get tackled, taken to ground where the ball touches the ground, and they player being then allowed to handball off. If you are taken to ground after prior opportunity that should be a free kick. But specifically if the ball touches the ground while being tackled that is essentially the same as bouncing it and should make for an easy decision.

Edited July 8, 2013 by deanox

[george_on_the_outer 7,696]

The low standard continues across all games, but it is invariably associated the same sinners...

Geelong V Hawthorn. Umpire Schmidt produced the biggest howler of the season with his "deliberate out of bounds call"

He then demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of the rules following the interchange mistake ( another umpiring error, that is beyond belief if you can count whether there are 3 on the interchange or not!)

A 50 m rule applies, so Schmidt takes Hale beyond the 50 m square...yes it's measured at 50m! and gives him a kick from only 50m out.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay/?round=CD_R201301415&matchId=CD_M20130141505

[Redleg 41,421]

The low standard continues across all games, but it is invariably associated the same sinners...

Geelong V Hawthorn. Umpire Schmidt produced the biggest howler of the season with his "deliberate out of bounds call"

He then demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of the rules following the interchange mistake ( another umpiring error, that is beyond belief if you can count whether there are 3 on the interchange or not!)

A 50 m rule applies, so Schmidt takes Hale beyond the 50 m square...yes it's measured at 50m! and gives him a kick from only 50m out.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay/?round=CD_R201301415&matchId=CD_M20130141505

I am not sure if i am misunderstanding you George, but if the ball is in the centre, when the infringement is paid, you go 50 metres towards the goal and that is where you take the kick. So 50 metres out would be about right.

If the square is 50 metres wide and they are in the centre of it, that is 25 to the end and another 25.

[praha 11,240]

The free kick against Scott Chisolm in the '99 game against Hawthorn is one that will stick with me. Similar to the tackle yesterday that should have been holding the ball but was called a trip. Chisolm ran down the Hawthorn player from behind as they ran into the square for a goal, and pulled him down. Was called in the back and they kicked an important goal late in the game.

Yesterday was pretty bad, though. That's the price you pay for being a poor side playing against the league's darlings. There were some bad calls but you can balance it out the other way. Problem is there were many non-calls while the Swans got many a weak call.

[DeeSpencer 26,080]

The low standard continues across all games, but it is invariably associated the same sinners...

Geelong V Hawthorn. Umpire Schmidt produced the biggest howler of the season with his "deliberate out of bounds call"

He then demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of the rules following the interchange mistake ( another umpiring error, that is beyond belief if you can count whether there are 3 on the interchange or not!)

A 50 m rule applies, so Schmidt takes Hale beyond the 50 m square...yes it's measured at 50m! and gives him a kick from only 50m out.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay/?round=CD_R201301415&matchId=CD_M20130141505

I actually thought that deliberate wasn't too bad. The player didn't want the ball to spin sideways and go out where he did but he did want the ball to spin forward and find the boundary. Considering it spun sideways it made the call look crazy but if the ball span forward and went out it would've made sense.

Deliberate will always be a horrible rule but it makes an umpire attempt to read a players mind which is pretty silly.

[rjay 25,081]

I actually thought that deliberate wasn't too bad. The player didn't want the ball to spin sideways and go out where he did but he did want the ball to spin forward and find the boundary. Considering it spun sideways it made the call look crazy but if the ball span forward and went out it would've made sense.

Deliberate will always be a horrible rule but it makes an umpire attempt to read a players mind which is pretty silly.

'master' if it had of spun forward it would not have gone out of bounds. That's the problem with the call.

I loved Jimmy Bartell trying to claim one a bit later that Hawthorn kicked over...the ump didn't fall for it but he made his point.

[Red N Blue Society 165]

Its called "PROTECTED SPECIES" folks...

Blind Freddy could see the frees that should have been paid against the Swans.

Why dont MFC stand up to this sort of BS!

Other clubs make statements about bad calls...We need to!! make the bad calls accountable Demons!!!

Agree with you Master...dubious frees to Fitzpatrick...soft in fact.

[jazza 1,323]

Its called "PROTECTED SPECIES" folks...

Blind Freddy could see the frees that should have been paid against the Swans.

Why dont MFC stand up to this sort of BS!

Other clubs make statements about bad calls...We need to!! make the bad calls accountable Demons!!!

Agree with you Master...dubious frees to Fitzpatrick...soft in fact.

so just because other clubs whinge and whine , you want us to follow?

no justification to do this and copy other small minded people,

lets just go about our business in a sensible and honest manner

weve plenty of work to do before lowering our standards to the other whingers

[JT9 104]

The application of the holding the ball rule yesterday was probably the worst Ive ever seen. What made it so sickening was that they were so inconsitent within 5 minutes of every decision

The howe one given. watts given (1st quarter)

jack and tippet not given

bolton not given, one against bird not given. it was was just so disgraceful to watch. it was sad to watch

Dont even get me started on the Clisby decision. Why does the AFL need to come out and say sorry and issue an apology to a mistake made when its against Geelong or Sydney but suddenly when its Melbourne nothing needs to be said? Dont upset the big boys

[JT9 104]

And that Tippet decision could be the worst of the year if it wasnt topped by the Clisby one a few minutes earlier.

We were on top, the final quarter we kicked 5 goals to 3 and their 3 came in that 2 minute spell after that decision.

He took on McDonald, spun around, dropped the ball and it was given. Its unexplainable

[mauriesy 7,353]

The free against Fitpatrick was paid for the secondary action when he tripped the Swan player who was trying to get up again to go for the ball. Whether it was holding the ball in the first place is still an issue.

The last free to Fitzpatrick was indeed 'soft', but the new ruck rule prohibits contact before the ball leaves the umpire's hands for a ball up or throw in ... the push, even though slight, was there and too early.

I still can't fathom how Tippett wasn't given holding the ball. It was right in front of me, and he just threw it in disposal. The only thing might have been that he had his back to the umpire who couldn't see whether he handballed it or not.

The MCG is 170m long, therefore it is 85m from the centre circle to the goal. A 50m penalty paid in the centre should take the player to 35m from goal, or 15m inside the 50m arc (even slightly closer if the 170m is measured fence to fence).

[mauriesy 7,353]

Its unexplainable

Inexplicable too.

[deanox 9,989]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-08/free-kicks-a-worry-voss

Voss has complained about the umpiring in the Brisvegas V GCS game!

[DEE fence 5,039]

Watched the CATSvHAWKS, they had some shockers as well, if Geelong had not come up they would have every right to scream blue murder, still the umpiring against us seemed malicious.

[Demon Stalwart 255]

_{The way I understand it is the real problem is we have Part Time Umpires trying to Umpire a supposedly Professional full time game where Players and coaches and everyone else involved get paid mega bucks}

_{Until such time as Umpiring becomes professional and Full time, you have to learn to put up with the Crap decisions we see week in and week out , and that wont change either until we get back some credibility as the umpires I imagine also look down on Melb as we have seen in past games.}

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

They seem to get many of the difficult to see ones right, but completely fail on the blatantly obvious ones or those that are in no way there.

Sponsored by OPSM! Oh the irony.

Should have gone to Spec Savers.

[[email protected] 101]

I need to know why players are not being penalized for incorrect disposal when a team mate grabs the ball from them (no handball or kick) That used to deemed a throw, but should it not be called incorrect disposal in the current rules ?? We did it yesterday and so did the Swans (in a pack)

[[email protected] 101]

Should have gone to Spec Savers.

They will need LIFESAVERS if they do it in the Grand Final... No Excuses

[Little Richard 6,265]

It almost felt like umpire 20 was actually blatantly cheating. I was st the game and all the appalling decisions were made by him. It really was extremely strange, almost if there was some sort of financial incentive or something involved...

Yeah because Sydney should really have to bribe umpires to beat us

[deanox 9,989]

Soxy, love you picked this up. In actual fact, I think two simple "interpretations" would clear up a lot of the problems the AFL has (i.e. the scrums and stoppages).

1. Players are penalised for holding the man when they run in and 'lie' across a tackled player and the tackler effectively killing the ball, or if they come in and grade the tackler etc. By encouraging players to stay off the 'stacks on' type packs that form, the game will be more open and cleaner. Balls will come out of packs quicker, which means more players can stay on the outside ready for the quick hands. I'm pretty sure the current practice is designed to lock the ball in; if someone is tackled and the ball can't come out, it can't be holding the ball. If a stoppage occurs and you are outnumbered, locking the ball in allows you time to man back up. 3rd, 4th and 5th men in, are just causing the packs to pile up.

2. As you suggested, if player A is tackled by Player Z and Player B (team mate of player A) takes the ball off him, then incorrect disposal is called. Whether he is on the ground or not this is incorrect disposal.

[sue 9,139]

Soxy, love you picked this up. In actual fact, I think two simple "interpretations" would clear up a lot of the problems the AFL has (i.e. the scrums and stoppages).

1. Players are penalised for holding the man when they run in and 'lie' across a tackled player and the tackler effectively killing the ball, or if they come in and grade the tackler etc. By encouraging players to stay off the 'stacks on' type packs that form, the game will be more open and cleaner. Balls will come out of packs quicker, which means more players can stay on the outside ready for the quick hands. I'm pretty sure the current practice is designed to lock the ball in; if someone is tackled and the ball can't come out, it can't be holding the ball. If a stoppage occurs and you are outnumbered, locking the ball in allows you time to man back up. 3rd, 4th and 5th men in, are just causing the packs to pile up.

Absolutely right. This may be much more effective at preventing stop play than any of the other rules the AFL has tried, though as usual there may be interpretation problems. Players leap on a pack and tackle anyone they are near, but they never get pinged for tackling someone who doesn't have the ball. No rule change needed there, just enforce the current one.

[Gorgoroth 13,016]

Is it funny that as soon as Geishan is back the umpires are shite again.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

We need to be honest. We're Melbourne. No one watches our games, we're not in prime time, we're low on the priority list.

We usually get at least one young, inexperienced umpire, or at least one umpire who really isn't that good.

Yesterday's umpiring was as bad as I've ever seen. The inconsistency in paying holding the ball (generally favouring Sydney), the tendency to pay free kicks for minor contact (the Fitzpatrick in-the-back at the end was the worst free kick I think I've ever seen, the Kelly deliberate included), and the number of absolute howlers was disgraceful.

Both the Tippett ones were holding the ball. The Fitzpatrick one was holding the ball. No one pushed Grundy in the back (he dived/fell over). Pyke was not pushed in the back.

The Clisby deliberate rushed behind I'm not sure about. Whatever the rules say, surely that situation is what the rule is there to prevent. He had his chance, he didn't take it, he was asked to play on, and he went over the line. Pressure or not, he had his chance and he didn't take it. If that's not paid, then players could abuse it to stand there, wait till play on, and then rush the ball over the line. I'm not sure a distinction between handpassing and kicking is relevant at all.

What is clear, though, is that nobody knows what the rule is. The umpire didn't seem sure, the players sure as hell didn't know what the rule was. We cannot have a game where we don't know the rules - this has to be addressed, clarified, and explained to all.

[Chook 15,022]

The Clisby rule is obvious. It's just like if he had kicked it out on the full, but had put his foot over the the goalsquare line. The moment he does that, where the kick goes is irrelevant. The ball is bounced at the top of the goalsquare.

The same principle applies here. Clisby cannot legally handball the ball before kicking it. The moment he handpasses it, the game is stopped and the ball is balled up. Where he handballed it is irrelevant because the game is stopped.

It's so goddamn obvious that it's unbelievable the umpire got it wrong.